BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.1004 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.29 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM

ANANTHAPUR

Between:

1.   Putluru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd.,
rep. by President, Putlur Village, Tadipatri Taluka
Anantapur District

2.   Putluru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd.,
rep. by Secretary, Sri Chinna Swamy, Putlur Village

Tadipatri Taluka, Anantapur District

3.   The Chief Executive Officer
Sri Prabhakar Reddy,Putluru Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Tadipatri Taluka, Anantapur District

                                                        Appellants/opposite parties

        A N D

L.Venkataramudu S/o Ganganna
Ramakrishna Wine Shop, Obuladevacheru
Kadiri Taluka, Anantapur District
                                                        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants             M/s K.Parandhama Chary

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s L.J.Veera Reddy

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

  THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.             The respondent filed complaint seeking direction to the appellants to pay an amount of `86,781/- towards excess amount received by them and interest @12 % p.a. from 8.02.2006 to 15.02.2008, `5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and `,000/- towards costs.

2.             The respondent is a member of the appellant society. He borrowed loan for agriculture purpose from the appellant society in February,1997 and he could not repay the loan amount due to adverse agriculture seasonal condition said to have affected  all farmers including the respondent. The appellants said to have not informed the respondent about the debt relief scheme introduced by the Government. The respondent paid an amount of `1,24,003/- and the second appellant issued receipts bearing number 534966 and 534967 on 8.02.2006 . Out of the amount of `1,24,003/- a sum of `1,05,755/- was kept in suspense account . The debt relief scheme was not extended to the loan account of the  respondent and eventually the second respondent refunded an amount of `19,170/- and said to have promised to pay an amount of `13,330/-.

3.             The respondent got issued notice dated 11.01.2008 to the appellant demanding for payment of the amount of `86,585/-. The second appellant issued reply stating that the respondent is entitled for refund of `32,204/- of which `18,974/- was already paid to him and an amount of `13,330/- will be paid to him.

4.             The first appellant adopted the written version filed by the second appellant. 

5.             The second appellant resisted the claim contending that the respondent is the member of the first appellant society and as per the guidelines of the scheme, ACCB issued circular with the effective date from 21.03.2006. The respondent  obtained loan of `12,500/- for digging of a bore well and another loan of `26,400/- for installation of submersible motor in the year 1997 agreeing to repay the loan with interest @16%pa.a by mortgaging his land and he promised to pay the amount on yearly installments.  The respondent sold his land and paid the loan with interest , `1,24,007/-. The second respondent issued receipts bearing nos. 534966 for `38,061/- and another receipt bearing no.534967 for `85,946/-. The respondent cleared the loan amount on 8.02.2006. The circular came into effect on 21.03.2006.As per the direction of the Central Bank, Ananthapur the respondent was given benefit.

6.             Due by for `72,824/- was adjusted towards the loan and voucher was obtained for the amount from the respondent. After adjusting the loan amount from the due by , the second appellant  obtained voucher for `13,300/-dated 31.03.2006 and another voucher dated 31.03.2007 for `5,674/- from the respondent and balance amount of `13,330/- is lying with the second appellant. The respondent got issued notice dated 11.01.2008 requesting the appellants to pay `1,24,007/- . The second appellant issued reply requesting the respondent to receive the amount of Rs.13,330/-. The respondent refused to receive the amount, filed the complaint. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7.             The respondent filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A7 and he was examined as PW1.  On behalf of the opposite parties, Paid Secretary has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.B1 to B14.  In the appeal two letters are received as additional evidence and are marked as Exs.B15 and B16.

8.             The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellants had not credited the amount paid on 8.02.2006 till 31.103.2006. The District Forum held the respondent entitled to the benefit of waived interest.

9.             Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the respondent was a defaulter and he had not paid single installment from 1997 and that the appellants  adopted innovative method by splitting the lump sum amount into annual installments and that the District Forum has not considered the calculation memo filed by the appellants. It is contended that the appellants deliberately adjusted two annual installments towards loan amount and kept balance standby to extend benefit to the respondent.

10.            The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?

11.            The respondent paid the loan amount of `1,24,003/- on 8.02.2006. Out of the amount paid by the respondent, the second appellant kept an amount of `1,05,755/- in suspense account, “due by”. It is not denied that the second appellant informed the respondent that the amount would be adjusted towards the loan account after verifying the eligibility of the respondent to meet the requirement of the circular issued by the Government.

12.            The Andhra  Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd  had  addressed letter dated 1.03.2006 to the commissioner for co-operation, Hyderabad  informing him about the approval of the scheme extending waiver of penal interest on agricultural loan of the co-operative credit sector and waiver of  interest on overdue on interest component for LT loans and the salient features of the scheme in the letter are as under:

1.         Penal Interest on overdue Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term agricultural loans subsisting as of 31.1.2006 is to be waived provided the entire amount of overdues are repaid on or before 30.6.2006.

2.         IOD on interest component of LT loans subsisting as of 31.1.2006 is to be waived provided the entire amount of overdues are repaid on or before 30.6.2006.

3.         The relief shall not be extended in the cases of part payment of the overdue loans and the relief shall not be based on any roll over of loan but on actual repayment of the entire overdue loans in cash in full. 

4.         The PACS shall pass on entire cash collections received on account of this relief to DCCBs, which shall pass on the collections to APCOB to be eligible for claiming the share of the higher tier in the relief.

5.         In case of rescheduled loans, if the borrower comes forward to repay the total overdue loan amounts with further interest upto the date of payment, the borrower will be provided the above relief by reversing the reschedulement and waiving the penal interest and IOD on interest component.

13.            The Bank communicated to all the general managers of District Co-operative Banks the guidelines of the scheme. The District Forum observed that the appellants had not adjusted the amount paid by the respondent till 31.03.2006 and keeping the amount in suspense account till 31.03.2006 and adjusting the amount on 31.03.2006 to the loan account of the respondent would make the respondent entitled for the benefit conferred by the scheme.

14.            The learned counsel for the  second appellant had divided the amount into two annual installments in order to extend the benefit of waiver of interest to the respondent. The adjustment of  part of the amount till 31.03.2006 was dealt with by the District Forum as under :

“But the opposite parties though accepted the amount of Rs.1,24,007/- on 08-02-2006 not credited to the loan clearance and interest of loan and not given a clearance of loan certificate to the complainant.  More over, they have credited some amount towards two loans and kept Rs.1,05,755/- in standby. So there was no clearance of loan as on 08-02-2006 and the loan was finally cleared and after calculating the refundable amount, a sum of Rs.13,300/- and Rs.5,674/-, total Rs.18,974/- paid back to the complainant by the opposite parties and obtained signature.  RW1 committed in his evidence that the amount was paid on 08-02-2006 was finally adjusted on 31-03-2006 only.  Hence, the entire amount paid by the complainant is not adjusted on 08-02-2006 itself.  Ex.B6 & B12 speaks that Rs.32,935/- and Rs.72,824/- were kept in suspense account i.e. dueby. Hence, the complainant’s loan was not cleared on the date of 08-02-206 and till now the account settlement is in pending.  Hence, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not eligible for any benefit, which comes under the Government Circular Ex.B1 is not acceptable.

15.            The appellants had not shown any reason for keeping the amount paid by the respondent on  8.02.2006 in suspense account till 31.03.2006.  The amount until received by the bank and credited to the account of the respondent remains unpaid and the respondent was rightly held entitled to the benefit of  waiver of penal interest. We do not see any infirmity in the findings returned by the District Forum except the award for interest which is directed to be paid after two months from the date of  the order on failure of the appellants to pay the amount . The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16.            In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the direction for payment of interest @6% p.a. and confirming the amount of `31,707/- and `2,000/-.  The parties shall bear their own costs.

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                    Dt.02.08.2012

KMK*